Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
I was surprised to see the Canadians still use them in Afghanistan also, now called the "TLAV".Originally posted by YankeeDog:I was about to pooh-pooh the addition of the M-113 until I looked it up, and discovered that more than a few are currently serving in Iraq.
-
I edited my comments above. You called it an "FN" which made me think you meant the C6, not the C9.Originally posted by Bastables:[QB]No In the lmg role (at section lvl) you can get it (C-9)
Apparently you have no data on the MG3, its tech specs, or any sort of premise whatsoever for the change to the heavier bolt, much less any information on its actual deployment and use in the field. Did you want to keep swinging in the dark, or perhaps you wanted to flick the light switch and illuminate the both of us?You have no data on the MG3, it's tech specs, yet categorically state the purpose of the retooling and improvements (MG42 to MG3) is to lower the rof. And then use that as the foundational argument that the high rof was a weakness of the original design. Your initial premis is false as is your conclusion as the MG3 ships with light/std and heavy bolts.
-
What are you talking about? MG3 has two bolts heavier for 800 to 900 rof or lighter/standard bolt for 1100-1200 rof. depending on what you need you change the bolt. The big change was chambering for NATO 7,62mm versus the old 7,92mmOriginally posted by Bastables:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
The MG42 had to be changed after the war - the ROF was far too high, and the 1200 rpm it was capable of was scaled back for modern service (MG3), and in all its imitators (i.e. M60, FN MAG), so I'm not sure I understand why the MG42 is held up as the paragon of all machine guns. It wasn't - it used up ammo way too fast and they had to fix that in the modern versions. The MG34 it was developed from disappeared soon enough as, IIRC, it was too closely machined.
FN's C9 used as the standred section/squad MG for commonwealth and USA is 750 rof to 1000 rof </font>
-
How many are still in service? We used the FN C2 as an LMG also - 30 round mag - but no one misses it now that it is gone because the belt-fed Minimi is obviously superior.Originally posted by JasonC:Mag only SAW LMGs
http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/madsen/madsen.jpg
http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/smallarm/lewis.html
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/dp.htm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/dpm.htm
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg10-e.htm
Agree completely with Guinness about LMGs.
Goody - Minimis here are not crew served, but the gunner does get an extra barrel to carry with him.
-
Originally posted by Childress:
But at least we've progressed to debating 'sterility' and infantry functions. A few months ago, the hot topics on the forum dealt with CTDs, hardware incompatibilities and other dire issues. So we're moving forward.
And that, my commissioned Australian friend, is why Steve doesn't ban me.Originally posted by gibsonm:Good to see an on topic thread that’s out stripping peng.
Well. Yet.Though the use of "stripping" and "Peng" in the same sentence is at the least a bootable offence if not a bannable one. But look at me stating matters of opinion as if they were matters of fact...
-
Every Minimi comes with two barrels in the Canadian Army, and yes, you are expected to change them regularly.
-
I see flamingknives' inability to understand that games appeal to different people for different reasons has rubbed off on you. Stop posting as if your preferences are the only ones that matter. It doesn't reflect reality - take a look at the sum total of the posts in this thread for evidence of that. 76mm and others have posted a view quite opposite to yours. I'm not advocating it, just saying it exists.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:I liked sniper and patrol for the same reasons, easy to understand and play with a clear game system. Dorosh, might think the map was simple and boring but It's what you do with it that matters.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but it doesn't pass unnoticed that you've stooped to demonizing through language.I think the ASL geeks tend to want the designer to do everything for them and provided the entertainment rather than doing it themselves.
It never claimed to be. CM:SF is clearly a game rather than a simulation, and guess what - so is Advanced Squad Leader. For all the bells and whistles and detail, ASL has never, ever claimed to be a "sim". Read the current forums at gamesquad or consimworld. I really wish people who know nothing about ASL would stop talking as if they do.Squad Leader was far more popular at my club that Firefight because it had all those units and rules, great counter and maps, but look beyond the packaging and it wasn't anywhere near as good a simulation of the period it covered.
This was a deliberate design decision, and is explained quite adequately even in the original rulebook circa 1977. "Design for Effect" is the hallmark of the ASL system. You'll find it is perpetuated in most tactical wargames - Combat Mission very much included as Steve has pointed out many times on these forums. If you need a definition of Design for Effect, I'm happy to provide one.Heck, the game boards in SL bore absolutely no relation to the game scale that was being played. If they had then a SL road would have been about 70ft wide. -
Not dissing, just trying to understand....Originally posted by Childress:Lol, I'm agreeing with Dorosh and he's dissing me... Moderators?
Seriously, what's the difference between "chrome" and "flavor"???? :confused:
I mean we obviously agree, it just seemed contradictory to dismiss chrome in one sentence and call for flavor in the next...
But even more seriously, what kinds of enhancements to the infantry model would you suggest? I think that that is what we are discussing and agreeing on and I would quite honestly be interested in your take on it, if you had some specific ideas.
-
I think it is worth pointing out a few things:Of(f) the top of my head I remember estimates for this from Vietnam and it was something literally in the tens of thousands of bullets fired for each enemy hit.
a) not all bullets are fired with the intent of hitting a human target
not all bullets need to hit a human target in order to help win a firefight or further the achievement of an objectivec) not all bullets are fired within the same context as a CM-scale battle - quite possibly whatever statistic you are quoting is including such things as helicopter ordnance, for example, which would not be of much use in determining small arms effects
The quote from Vietnam I see most often is the amount of HE tonnage it took to produce an enemy casualty, not the number of bullets fired, but either way, by 1968 an increasing proportion of infantry weapons in Vietnam were capable of automatic fire, and the use of same was used just as much (? more?) for suppression rather than penetrating cover or inflicting casualties. Pictures of Americans in Hue or Saigon using the "spray and pray" method of firing over walls kind of bear this thought out. Images of Canadians doing the same thing in Afghanistan 40 years later testify to the notion that things haven't changed much today.
-
Exactly. That's useless chrome. Though some aircraft effects would be welcome.Originally posted by Childress:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:
I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.
Peter.
My personal preferences for future developments are, in order:
1- Squashing the few remaining bugs; pathfinding, movement order quirks (e.g., apparently Quick=Fast-fatigue), WEGO issues, etc.
2- Adding more functionality and flavor to infantry ops.
3- Addressing the quickbattle morass.
4- Adding environmental effects like fire, arty smoke and such.
...99-Inlcuding more nifty vehicles and troop types. [/QB]</font>
-
This is the reason the FN MAG was never used as a squad automatic in Canada (it was used in that role in Britain, however) and is why we adopted the Minimi to replace the FN C2 (automatic version of the FN assault rifle which was our previous LMG).Originally posted by Cantabron:As an officer cadet I have used the Spanish MG3 on some field excersices (this is the only MG I've ever used so I don't really have much experience with this 'machines').
It performs really well, i mean, it's good in delivering bullets to the target. But it lacks ergonomics. Especially since we use it in the old school Squad LMG role(and my guess is that we will continue using it in that role until the mg4s arrive...).
In my opinion it's a bit too heavy (11.5 kg!) to be used in the squad lmg role.
The barrel can be quickly changed, but you must hold it with an asbestos mat or your gloves will melt. This slows down the process quite a lot, and then again, the spare barrel case is not particullary confortable to carry.
The ammo is different from every other weapon we use in the squad (G36E). The ammo boxes we have are too crude and there is no thought-out way to carry them (just a handle).
There are no optics platform or rails to attach optics, which I believe it greatly reduces it's efectiveness.
I haven't used the MG4 or the minimi, but I willing to bet they are much more suited for this task.
As an MMG with a tripod, you must wait until next year to get my opinion on it
I won't see that until then. The MG42 is lauded as being a great "general purpose" machine gun, but with the advent of better LMGs that reflect actual likely battle ranges - i.e. using smaller rounds that don't need to travel as far - perhaps the concept of "General Purpose" is a bit of a myth and the notion that the MG42 was a be-all, end-all dies just a little bit more - particularly since no one seems to be using MG42-inspired weapons at the section level anymore.
-
No map generator/editor. Any campaign you generate would be on the limited map set released with the game.
Still, the series is definitely worth watching. Winter Storm was a good start; lots of issues with it and not my cup of tea, but I bought a copy to support the work, and will eagerly see what Kharkov's reviews are like. Matrix doesn't release demos often as a matter of course, apparently, which coupled with a lack of a map generator diminishes my interest, but a lot of good word of mouth might change my mind.
-
I agree. So to simplify things more and to be sure I understand you, would you argue that a game requires more, or less, information be supplied to the player than a simulation? I think you could go either way, really. A simulation to my mind requires more real world data than a game does as it performs its calculations, but also possibly reports on that data far less to the player (FOW).Originally posted by thewood:I think sometimes the debate can simplified ... to whether its a game or a simulation.
I can't say what would have cost developmental time or not; I have no idea. You've identified a key quote from the manual that states the lack of a TF display screen was a deliberate feature. Not reporting data to the player is one of those design decisions that gets made as we all acknowledge. I agree with you that the rationale doesn't seem firm; the "core units" could probably be divined by any player from the unit designations during play, but moreover, the carryover of units - any units - from mission to mission seems inconsistent to the point of being inconsequential as far as how the units are treated in any game. That is to say, any player will treat all the units under command with kid gloves not because of the tactical situation, but because the structure of the linked-scenarios is so mysterious one has no idea what will come next or how they will impact each other. And in the context of a real world campaign, that may seem correct on the face of it, but I'd argue that operationally speaking there may indeed be times when a real world commander might be inclined to put forth a "maximum effort" (in the sense of the word as General Savage purported to know it in 12 O'Clock High) regardless of casualties - having access to that kind of context is one thing, and is present in a limited way, but having actual control of that context in a true campaign setting would be quite another. The player would have far more freedom to use (and abuse) units in a system in which he interacted with the operational context. In that sense, I'm not sure the lack of feedback as far as TF unit status is realistic, as is stated in the manual. Given the current linked-scenario format, I think the negative impacts it would have would be minimal - especially since "auxiliary" units tend to appear rarely enough. I don't think even with perfect knowledge of them that abuse of the so-called auxiliaries could dangerously unbalance the scenarios - and if they did, that would be the scenario designers' fault, not the decision to include a TF status screen.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:Michael,
Regarding the Campaign, the CM:SF manual (p.27) states, "Combat mission makes no attempt to inform the player about which units are core or auxiliary, in order to remove the temptation for player abuse of auxiliaries (i.e. treating auxiliary units as "disposable")...
It seems to me that if BFC were really concerned about player abuse of auxiliary units, they missed a trick...
The simpler explanation is that a true campaign with unit rosters, transfers, etc., would have put the game back several more months and BFC probably just thought the extra effort wasn't worth it.
[ March 07, 2008, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
I thought perhaps I'd split off a discussion on information presentation as I think it is generally recognized as important and I'm not getting a clear sense that there is any consensus. Nor would I expect any.
Information feedback isn't a new concept; the military has all kinds of relatively current buzzwords, of course, such as the OODA Loop ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop ). Even before anyone knew what to call it, the ability for a gamer to interface with the game's data was an obviously essential component of game design. A player of a game, regardless of whether it is a PC game, board game, console game, needs to have certain data presented to him in order to make intelligent decisions during gameplay. That's a given.
What is also a given is that it is sometimes desirable to conceal information from the player in order to enhance gameplay. This can be something obvious, like not revealing the position of hidden treasure or opposing players, or more subtle deceptions.
We can examine the first Combat Mission games to see how information was presented to the player. The CMX1 model was not without controversy - just about every aspect of the game's design had its share of both critics and supporters. Some examples of typical information feedback for the player are as follows:
Enemy location
"Fog of War", as it is known, was a very popular feature, and was expanded on during the life cycle of CMX1 with an enhanced ("Extreme") FOW setting. In short, the location of enemy units could be hidden from both the player, and the units under his command (not the same thing). How well units got spotted in the various setting was a matter of some consternation to some; personally I thought the system worked generally well. Landmines seemed too easy to spot. However, given the limited modelling of engineering capabilities, this tended to balance out in play. And sometimes a developer needs to do that - make one thing weaker than it really was in order to counteract something that has to be stronger than it was in real life.
I may also be one of a small minority to try and PBEM another human with FOW turned off. At least, playing without FOW seems to be akin to riding a moped or dating a fat chick - no one talked about it much. Not sure I ever finished the game; tried to bring back memories of the old Squad Leader days - even played against one of the old Avalon Hill staffers, but you can't go home again.
Unit Information
Each unit in CMX1 had a data screen which was interesting to me mainly for the kill data at the end of the game. Certainly for juvenile contests or tracking info in manual campaigns, it was interesting but not an essential. The info screen also contained raw data on in game firepower, penetration, etc. Perhaps it was useful to those unschooled in Second World War era weaponry or those devoted to competitive play. I didn't get much use out of it personally, though it did come in handy to find out which trucks had passengers on them and the ID of those passengers rather than cycling through the units with the "+" key.
LOS Tool
A very controversial subject. There were those - myself included - that argued that allowing a player to check lines of sight from anywhere on the map to anywhere on the map gave the player unrealistic co-ordination and control of his resources that a real life commander would lack. A counter-argument, possibly valid, was that the 3D world was imperfectly drawn and that the player needed an advantage in planning out his turns. I may be mis-remembering all the counter-arguments and am happy for some assistance here.
These were some of the issues we dealt with in CMX1, at any rate.
============================================================
CM:SF
The developer is presented the same issues in CM:SF, and perhaps even some new ones now that there are additional features in the game. I'm not familiar with any one thread that has dealt exclusively with the topic - if there has been apologies in advance and I'll appreciate any link to same. Perhaps a discussion would be of interest.
Campaign
I'm acutely aware of the fact that the "campaign" in fact isn't, but I should clarify my statement on that point. I don't mean to imply that the linked scenarios in TF: Thunder are somehow not fun or unsatisfying. Having contributed something like 15% of the scenarios in them, I have a small stake, and more importantly, I was first hand witness to the very talented stable of designers that put together the bulk of the scenarios, which cover a wide array of situations (from small infantry-only to large armour battles), in some fairly unique terrain configurations, all done with deliberation and anticipation of a positive reception by the community. Yet it strikes me that for all the intention that these scenarios be considered a "campaign", that the player feel he is either in command or at least experiencing life at the operational level of a modern task force, there isn't a single data screen describing what is in the task force, who is in the task force, and what the status of the various elements are from mission to mission. Never mind the inability to actually transfer personnel, select units for missions, actually design the operational plans and otherwise interact directly with the operational battlespace, I am talking about simply seeing who is who in the zoo. And you can't.
Unit information
The level of unit information seems frustrating to me, but this may be linked to FOW issues. That's an inelegant descriptor since we use FOW to describe what we know about the enemy in CM. I'm not sure of the best way to say "the real guy wouldn't know so you shouldn't" so bear with me. If the player is nominally a company commander (or more accurately, all the platoon commanders and the company commander simultaneously), would he really know how many bullets Pvt. Jones in the 2nd Fireteam of the 2nd Squad has? I can't give a yes or no. There is a lot going on right now in the unit display screen at present, with different coloured icons for status, ammo, in command, etc. as was present in CMX1. Is this optimal? I find the disappearing soldiers a bit unnerving though would be at a loss to suggest something better - with the exception that an overall status screen would be an excellent way of tracking this. Which brings back the question of would a real commander have that. We debated that in CMX1 also.
Those are only two off the top of my head. What other types of information feedback would people like to see? I know that an LOS tool has been suggested; I can understand the logic in using the fire command as a workaround and in wanting to restrict the ability of players to just scoping out lines of sight. I also get the counter-arguments that GPS and familiarity with the ground, and personal recce and all that stuff can also be factored in to a decision to let a player use a free ranging LOS tool, so I'm not necessarily looking to reopen that debate, just looking for other instances where informational feedback may be lacking.
Or have they gotten it right and less information is better? A "cleaner", slicker interface, easier to use, less clutter, faster play?
[ March 07, 2008, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Ah; you're unfamiliar with actual usage of the phrase then. Makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion with you. Off topic anyway, and since further conversation on this line only further exposes you as a bigot, I suggest we drop the subject.Originally posted by flamingknives:Why the letter? Because that's what I would describe a rules lawyer as and that's the sense in which I use it.
On this we agree. Why does everyone assume that more features in CMX2 means less intuitiveness? The obvious answer is that there are a great many features now that lack that same ease of use and intuitiveness that did mark the first series. Things like LOS tools which are present but have to be fudged (and can't be for units without weapons). Lack of a unit display screen. Still don't have an overall unit menu from which to see who is still breathing and who is not. I've probably argued against such a thing in the past, but as the game gains in complexity and detail, so too must the interface. It simply has to.Personally I'd prefer that CM stayed clear of the kind of investment you describe. What really caught my attention with CMBO was how simple it was to play but how much depth there was such that I was still playing it when CM:BB came out.And it is, of course. The right click menu (now space bar menu) for example, is back, to everyone's great delight. As the interface develops, there is nothing that says added features need to add complexity. As Peter suggested, if you only cross a river once every 100 games, what harm is there to including riverine craft? You can opt to never use them. If you really dig them, you can use them all the time. All that is lost is development time, and in my opinion, features such as prisoners, wire, and I'll add fire here for the boys, simply need to be included at some point anyway as they are not frills but rather pretty standard stuff in reading any common accounts of combat in the Second World War.
-
In the ASL community, there is a large segment of the population that believe that knowing the rulebook is part of the game (and by extension, expecting your opponent to likewise know the rulebook and not to assist when he doesn't - your knowledge of a rule and his ignorance becomes a tool in the arsenal). I don't agree with that segment myself. It doesn't seem sporting or gentlemanly to me, but I see the logic behind it, as arguably the fellow who devotes more time to learning the rules and becoming adept at the nuances should be advantaged in the same way that the athlete who works out 7 times a week "deserves" to beat the athlete who doesn't, natural skill or luck notwithstanding. All of which is highly debatable and need not be argued here. More importantly, whether I agree with it or not, or whether you are aware of it or not, it is widely accepted, or put another way, it is a firm community standard in that group of people.Originally posted by flamingknives:As it happens, this Colonel Blimp was not really a rulebook lawyer - He just liked knowing about rules that allowed him to win.
I'm afraid calling this fellow uncomplimentary names due to your own ignorance of this community standard simply marks you as a bigot. To me, it's not different than laughing at someone because they're wearing a turban and being unaware of the religious significance of the headcovering. And I'm not trying to be abusive; ignorance is ignorance - I don't think you're willfully ignorant or bigoted by nature, just unaware of this very tiny community's standards. There's no reason you would know that. But it makes sense when you look at the expense involved. Not just in money, but at the time invested in reading through that huge binder of rules which numbers several hundred pages; some fellows sit down annually and read it cover to cover. It starts to make sense when you realize the investment these guys make - hours and hours - to just learning how to play the silly thing. Knowing arcane rules becomes a point of pride, I suppose. It doesn't compare to playing Sniper! or Cityfight since back in the day, you picked that up for an hour's worth of wages, flipped through a dozen pages of basic rules, taught a buddy to play - if you could find one, odds were you played solo at least part of the time - and you both helped each other out with the rules. ASL is a world unto its self.
Why just the letter? A rules lawyer can argue spirit just as heatedly as letter. I've seen it many times.A rulebook lawyer, to me, is one who argues over an aspect or interpretation of the rules, taking the letter rather than the spirit.
[ March 07, 2008, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
We were discussing intellectual honesty. I guess I see how far yours goes. Did you even read the list I posted? I'm not talking about collectibles - there are dozens of Third Party Publishers putting out new content, and thousands of players still buying scenarios - and playing them. There are dozens of tournaments around the world every year - ASL Texas, Oktoberfest, Winter Offensive, etc. as further proof the game is popular, and has a very active community. Despite the complexity.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Michael Dorosh,
You can't really say a game is good on the basis that it is still selling or that people are collecting it.
But you're right. They're all playing the game because it sucks.
It's possible they weren't bright enough to understand the rules. My point is not to be insulting, but to point out once again, we are talking about individual thresholds. You are holding forth on matters of individual taste as if they are universal matters of fact. Anyway, Cityfight is on my shelf so I'll pull it down and take a look. I think the "problem" I spotted with it when I bought it last year was - from my perspective - the single map it came with and lack of flexibility. It came out a year before Squad Leader, so once SL hit the shelves, with its multiple scenario format, I don't think it was ever going to compete with that.I remember buying SPI's Cityfight when it came out because I really liked Firefight which was a really fast streamlined game.Problem was Cityfight was all but un-playable in that although it was a good attempt it was just to cumbersome to be fun for all but the dedicated.
Actually, you have no idea what I could get through in a night.You could spend a night and get half way through a medium scenario.
In your opinion. I was good for one session of Sniper in an afternoon. Actually, the maps were so BORING and there were only two - one urban, one rural - that was about all I could stand. Again, individual thresholds.When playing Patrol or Sniper you could play a dozen games in an evening all of them more fun.I did this VASSAL map for Sniper!
So it is not as if I am unfamiliar with the game. But there are only so many scenarios I would be willing to play on this bland little map. If you could play on it 12 times in an afternoon, that's great, others would differ in that opinion. The beauty of the random map generator in CMX1 was that there were always new tactical challenges. Another "missing" feature that is sorely missed.
Again, you're stating your own desires. 76mm was pretty clear that a handful of AFV types doesn't cut it for him. So what would you like to say to him? A bit of a strawman in any event, as you're moving away from stuff you would expect to find in any tactical situation to truly arcane things. Intellectual honesty again.I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.How important would you say that factoring in the taking of prisoners would be in a Second World War title? Putting aside the question of how it is done. I think questions like that are far more important than whether or not we can expect to see arcane troop delivery systems. Because even in the modern era, they become important at the tactical level. Prisoners in Afghanistan are in the news all the time. In Gulf War I, prisoners were an enormous logistical burden, as they became in 1945 in western Europe, even at battalion level, or in 1941 on the Eastern Front. Surrendering can be infectious. A poorly-led Italian force would need to be modelled differently for that reason than a force of US Rangers in Normandy. Otherwise, you may as well just go play Chess - without differing morale models and tendencies to surrender, all you've got is pretty uniform mods on stock characters. If that's your idea of a "perfect" game - and it's fair to feel that way, I can see the appeal of a "clean" game system - then okay, but the developer loses any right to advertise it on the basis of realism or detail.
How important is it to be able to get ammunition for the Bazooka, without sending 6 (or 12) men running off the firing line back to an ammunition point or halftrack in order to fetch it? (That's how the Javelin/Stryker is currently modelled). Is that the kind of detail you would expect in a "clean" game system such as the one you're advocating?
[ March 07, 2008, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Thanks, LLL. I've learned a lot from everyone and I look forward to your posts as well as they're always articulate.Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:Count me as a Dorosh fanboy.
While he's surprisingly prone to get dragged into petty flame wars, I've learned a lot from him over the years reading this board. And, sorry Steve, even as a big BFC/CMSF fan, I believe his critiques of the game are mostly on point, even if he is demanding some "stretch goals" that can't economically be provided at present.
He's the closest thing this community has to a futurist (but look where that got Cassandra). Disagree with him if you will. Dismissing or belittling him though is unfair and unwise.
Not only did Cassandra receive the gift of prescience, but apparently in earlier life became entangled with "a man pretending to be a God." I've only ever known anyone from BF.C to claim to be a prophet, not the Messiah. The latter role was reserved for Lewis/Mr. Tittles/:Username:/Yoozername.
I hope people can see the difference between the kinds of things being suggested in this thread, and the proposal for Bulldozer Mission at any rate.
-
I'm not sure what this comparison is supposed to mean? Avalon Hill went under, but it wasn't because of ASL. ASL is still selling, in fact, Valor of the Guards just got released to much fanfare a week or so ago. For a list of all products, official and unofficial, released in the last couple of years, go here:Originally posted by Peter Cairns:I think you need to stay close to the centre of the bell curve, if not you risk the game, as in ASL (and your shirt as a company).
http://www.desperationmorale.com/worldofasl/worldrecent.html
More amazingly, out of print stuff is fetching obscene amounts of money. A Bridge Too Far is routinely selling for 400 dollars a copy, for example. Still extremely popular and probably still outselling newer tactical game systems like Panzer Grenadier. MMP, the official supplier of ASL stuff, just announced that not only will they be providing ASL content in their ASL Journal, but will be distributing it via Operations Magazine as well, which they had been loathe to do before. They have a substantial market.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I've suggested too many things that are extremely rare, and I haven't been the only one to point out the conspicuous absence of prisoners, deliberate close assault of tanks, barbed wire, etc. Yes, you risk distorting "the game" but 76mm's point, which I'm replying to, is that "the game" is too sterile for his tastes. Flamingknives is at the opposite end of the spectrum, apparently, and wishes it was more like Chess. As I said, there is a wide variety of interest levels which I think everyone recognizes. Painting a scenic picture on a blank canvas is also 'distorting' it - in but one manner of speaking.The more you try to put in "all the options", the more your risk distorting the game. Yes these things could happen, but how often would it happen in real life.
For example? In CMX1 I could count on prisoners being taken every game. Just about any AAR I've ever read for my own Regiment in NW Europe listed enemy casualties in terms of killed, wounded and prisoners, so it didn't "undermine realism" in my eyes. The fact that friendly units had to be tasked to guard them was also realistic, though now with 1:1 I would expect something even more true to life, such as individuals splitting off (or disappearing from the screen), walking wounded being tasked as escorts (again, simply disappearing would simulate that), etc. - but a status screen of some kind stating that was what they were doing would be nice since there is a fairly large informational vacuum that the player is left in at present.Do you spend a lot of time and effort putting in things that will only happen once in a dozen games? If they are in do you make them happen more than is realistic to show them off? Do you let players use them as options even though they undermine realism and make things more and more gamey?
What is "needed" will always be a matter of individual opinion, and that's all we're discussing here. And it really does differ. 76mm's threshold of boredom is different than flamingknives', or yours, or mine. If you're going to attempt to argue that variety is somehow undesirable then you're simply not being intellectually honest. I understand the argument about development time and dragging the game down with pointless features (I've never played an ASL scenario in which anyone ended up swimming or climbing a cliff and don't lament the non-inclusion of rules for pipers, mine dogs or the Maus in CM). I don't necessarily agree that the "missing" features from CMX1 are pointless, however.The current BF strategy of putting in what is needed and resisting lists of requests for more and more complexity and obscurity has to be the way to go for CM.Peter. [/qb]
[ March 07, 2008, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
How do you model something that hadn't been tested in combat? </font>Originally posted by FAI:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bodkin:
Will the CMSF T-90 have active defence systems modelled like Shtora?
When's the T-95 due?
-
Counter argument:Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Player fatigue, or boredom, or whatever you want to call it, will be alleviated by one of a few conditions:
a) greater variety in units
greater variety in terrainc) greater variety in types of scenarios
d) greater capabilities of the units
Chess.
Fewer unit types than CMX2 (6 in all, and each side has exactly the same).
Less terrain - black and white tiles
Same scenario every single time
Unit capabilities very limited.
</font>
-
I believe Andreas actually crewed them during his service in the Bundeswehr, and if I recall his comments correctly, they were scaled back for the reasons I mentioned. Andreas' word is good with me, far better than my own memory, so take that for what it is worth to you!Originally posted by Oddball_E8:the mg3 still fires at 1200 rpm doesnt it? (with the option of a heavier bolt wich reduces it to 900 rpm)
They removed the .50 from infantry units here a few years ago, and there was a huge hue and cry - from the infantrymen who had to carry the pieces on their machine gun courses, and actually employ the weapon in the field. They loved it too, and were all too willing to schlep it, just so long as they got to shoot it.That actually makes sense. Because of the trajectory and the straight back recoil of the .50 it would have a smaller cone at normal combat distances. This would necessitate searching and traversing which, depending on the mount, is not always easy or instinctive. A weapon with a greater spread at the same range makes this more automatic.I still love Mamma Duce though.
-
The MG42 had to be changed after the war - the ROF was far too high, and the 1200 rpm it was capable of was scaled back for modern service (MG3), and in all its imitators (i.e. M60, FN MAG), so I'm not sure I understand why the MG42 is held up as the paragon of all machine guns. It wasn't - it used up ammo way too fast and they had to fix that in the modern versions. The MG34 it was developed from disappeared soon enough as, IIRC, it was too closely machined.
The Browning .50 is no different than a water cooled MG in terms of weight and portability and as an infantry weapon, it has other disadvantages when employed in an anti-personnel role. It's main advantages are it has a large round and can be used against other targets - small vehicles, aircraft, buildings, etc. That it is employed in a variety of roles I think is a holdover from the fact it's simply always been used that way in US service despite the fact there are probably specific weapons systems that could deal with individual threats much more effectively, the .50 is an all-purpose weapon without the need for specialization.
With regards to 'accuracy', I'm not sure that's something you want first in a machinegun - each weapon puts out a cone of fire or a beaten zone at various ranges when fired directly/indirectly. I think the .50 was criticized by someone at my own board for actually being too accurate. When we were talking about why .50s were not used as anti-personnel weapons when mounted on Sherman tanks in the Second World War, he stepped up and related how he was a crew commander on Lynx Recce vehicles (M113 C&R to the Americans - a smaller M113, basically used for reconnaissance). I'm probably remembering this wrong as it doesn't seem intuitive to me, but I thought he said something about the .50 being unsuited to anti-personnel work because of a flat trajectory (??) and perhaps an inherent accuracy which means the bullets don't "spread" the way you want a machinegun to at range. Like I said, I stand very much open to correction on that - I'll have to see if I can find his exact words as they had the ring of authenticity to them. But the point being that pinpoint accuracy isn't so much an issue.
[ March 06, 2008, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
We can argue back and forth about this feature and that feature all we want; the underlying point which seemed to resonate, and which I had wanted to emphasize, was that there are currently fewer ways to employ the units at our command than in the old engine. Player fatigue, or boredom, or whatever you want to call it, will be alleviated by one of a few conditions:Originally posted by Big Poppa Pump:I agree surrendering is not just fluff. It can be abstracted if needed. A little white flag icon instead of the routing exlamation point or the red cross for a wounded soldier.
Close assualts on tanks and hand to hand combat would also be welcome additions. As far as I'm aware close assaults do not occur without an area target command near the tank. If the tank moves (particularily in WEGO) you end up throwing grenades at nothign for 60 seconds. Again I do note need to animations of infantry crawling on tanks just an icon to let me know it is occuring.
All this being said I am amazed at the improvement 1.06 and 1.07 have brought. The gameplay is very strong now and I look forward to future improvements and modules.
a) greater variety in units
greater variety in terrainc) greater variety in types of scenarios
d) greater capabilities of the units
We've already been told, by the creator no less, that the games will be limited in scope, so a) and
are by default low. c) is in the hands of the scenario designers, but are also a function of d), in particular, as well as a) and .In short, the more things you can do with the units, the more types of missions you can create, and the less essential it is to include 80 types of AFVs, squads, small arms, etc.
An actual campaign, which CMX2 does not have, would be an extension of scenario design. Lacking a true campaign model, there are always manual systems which were popular for CMX1 - haven't seen any crop up yet for CMX2 with the exception of something Adam was cooking up IIRC? I think Kip mentioned something about the Ukraine also - but the number of manual campaigns that get planned have always outnumbered those that actually get played through to completion by an order of magnitude...
Anyway, the point isn't to lobby for this feature or that feature (previously revealed faulty understanding of the thread notwithstanding), the point is that the sum total of unit capabilities is what will increase replayability and add variety to what at some point will become a sterile experience.
Not to discount the draw of good visuals and nothing more; I've played through the Medal of Honor series three times despite the fact it has a weak "campaign" model and limited unit set, solely because I felt engaged by the storyline and mostly was overcome by the visuals. I think it would be unfortunate for CM to be marketed in that manner, as most other game series do that.
not all bullets need to hit a human target in order to help win a firefight or further the achievement of an objective
I won't see that until then. 
a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Interestingly, the US Army's own tests during World War II found that camouflage uniforms on soldiers in motion in deciduous foliage actually attracted the eye more than the olive drab uniforms.
British tank crews had to give up their black coveralls also, because the Germans were wearing black AFV uniforms, so the story goes.